Rights (un)Defined

Hafsa Ahsan,
The Quran is outdated. It does not serve the needs of the modern woman. You are more interested in promoting Islam than you are in promoting women. You are so charged up in your quest to promote your religon that you did not even bother to think about all the disturbing things you wrote. For example Lady Slave. What the hell is that? Do you know that this is the 21st Century? How can you be comfortable with an ideology that skirts around slavery? Islam gives no clear verdict on Slavery! And you are promoting this. WHy? Then you wrote some more on how Women can be hit if no marks are left behind. What in the name of Tariq Road are you talking about? Again any rationale person or psychologist will advise against physical violence. But all these things are okay with you. Because you cleverly juxtapose them against the very human and natural weaknesses of free socieites. Then you wrote some weird suggestion that girls should find online jobs so they can work from home! What you are trying to do is make girls feel guilty about the simple pleasures of life like going out, wearing what they want, persuing a career. You are working against women and for the promotion of Islamic ideology. Your middle classs Islam is dieing a slow death just like Sharukh Khan in that movie Kal Ho Na Ho. He died very slowly. And the audience was sick of him. Because you know the girl had found a better hero who was healthy, wealthy and possibly younger. But Sharukh Khan made everyone cry and he sniffed and he choked and he said his goodbyes. And my khala said to me: Yeh Jaldee Se Kyoo Nahee Mar Jata?

Minhaj Arifin

suzaine:
Check out this article on Hijab:

The Hijab
by Zeba Khan

Fundamental Islam is fundamentally flexible and quite easy to implement, while still allowing room for individualism and expression through dress. There are no prohibitions for women`s dress on color, cloth, or style so long as they fit basic requirements. Those requirements are:


That the body is covered in a cloth that isn`t see-through and won`t expose it when standing in the light.
That the clothes are not tight or figure-revealing.
That the clothes do not imitate the religious or national dress of people who aren`t Muslim. Islam is against wanna-be-ism in its followers.
That they aren`t a proud display of glamour or wealth.
That they cover the body even when the wearer is walking or bending over.
That the clothes cover everything but hands, face and feet. That includes the neck and ankles, and additionally the drawing of the scarf over the bust.
That they aren`t men`s clothes.
Personally, I`ve never met a Muslim woman who wrapped her scarf quite like anyone else did. There are always minor differences, individual touches applied in the folding, the draping, or the styling. It takes a trained eye to recognize and appreciate these touches, so don`t be surprised if you have no idea what I`m talking about.

I first took up Hijab in America of all places, a country not famous for highly civilized notions such as modesty and dignity. Being a student in a multi-ethnic school in Chicago, my wearing a scarf would not normally have attracted any attention. But, I was a novelty. For two years I was `normal` and most people had no idea I was Muslim, let alone half-Pakistani. My outward appearance gave no indication of my faith, I couldn`t be told apart from any of the hundreds of white American Christians I studied with. For all public appearances, I was a white American, and when I started practicing hijab and wearing a scarf, it was a shock to those around me. Teachers and peers who noticed my transition and who were well-enough acquainted with the `normal me` asked the `fundamentalist me` what was going on. Fundamentalist me didn`t quite know what was going on either, but I started looking for answers to why Islam was big on modesty. The more people asked me, the more I was forced to look. The more I looked, the more beauty and logic I found in Islam. How I dressed had a great impact on my faith, surprisingly not vice-versa.

Before I actually researched the Islamic mandate for Hijab, I was thoroughly brainwashed with the idea that modesty was oppression and man`s attempt to safe-guard his possessions, his women, from those who would seek to steal them. My idea was just slightly off, Hijab is woman`s attempt to safeguard her sexuality against those who would seek to exploit it, visually or physically, or to misuse its power. It`s not because woman is weak, it`s because society is weak. Think about it, everyone knows that sexuality has power, why else do you think sex-appeal is so successful in advertising? Sex appeal is frequently abused in all levels of society in much of `modern` civilization. Advertisers use a woman showering on TV to sell soap, to smile and wink and make us want to buy a certain brand of biscuit. In the US even advertising geared towards children is tainted with dancing girls and exposed skin, because the influential powers of sex appeal work on people of all ages.

One common misunderstanding that people have is that Scarfies are conceited and place excess worth on their looks. So much so that they cover it all up because no one is worthy of seeing it. In actuality, it`s Scarfies who are normal and non-Scarfies who lack self-esteem, who lack appreciation enough to guard their own beauty, to prevent it from being misused and overemphasized as their only quality that actually matters. It`s not that Scarfies are conceited, it`s just that everyone else has low self-worth.

Imagine being so scared of rejection that you refuse to show your real face in public, you cannot leave your house without painting on a fake one. Imagine being so scared of having your brain and personality being discovered as substandard that you squash yourself into bras that elevate your breasts and underwear that gives your butt extra oomph just so that the attention is painfully drawn away from your heart. Imagine feeling so worthless as a human that you have to try to sell yourself to the world, because unless you put on a show, they might not buy. I`m not saying that women who wear makeup and revealing clothes are substandard, I`m just saying that they think they are. A make-up wearing, push-up bra sporting woman who reads this will most likely be insulted that I tell her she has no self-worth, especially since she thinks she`s drop-dead gorgeous. The problem is, she only thinks she`s gorgeous when`s she`s made up, smashed in, or pushed out. Take it all away and this same woman refuses to leave the house. If that`s not low self-worth then I must not know what it is.

Now clear your mind, and imagine being so self-assured that you can wear a tent (a real two-poled, staked-out affair in olive drab) every day and know that people will look beyond the canvas and into your heart and mind to determine your worth. Imagine being so confident in who you are that you can come to work in a large barrel with eye-holes cut out, and your employers will still praise your work and men will still sheepishly ask for your hand in marriage with ever having seen into your barrel, without you ever putting on a show to sell yourself. The barrel and tent theory isn`t a joke, all you have to do is substitute the barrel and the tent for modest clothing and a scarf.

There are two ways a woman can deal with her appearance. The first is to let herself be ruled by it, and the second way it to let the woman rule it. In the first instance, where the woman is ruled by her appearance, she cuts her sleep short for more time in the morning to put her makeup on before she goes to work. She purposely turns her skin cells cancerous for a `healthy` looking tan, and lets her mental health be constantly under siege with questions about her self-worth and the stress of competing with other women. It`s no wonder that thousands of women in the US are bulimic or anorexic, or just obsessed about their looks. Does this make my butt look big? Oh no, my lips are too pale! Too pale for what? Allah makes no mistakes. I have to lose ten pounds, or else! Or else the men who stare recreationally at my butt will be grossed out and then no one will think I`m pretty! Then how will I get married? This business suit has to fit just right. Otherwise I won`t be in good standing at the office. Ugly employees might scare the customers away..)

In the second instance, where the woman rules her appearance, she puts her priorities in order and chooses much-needed sleep over the forty-five minutes it takes to get dolled-up in the morning. She decides not to put herself at risk for cancer by bleaching or tanning her skin, she doesn`t give herself anemia or anorexia trying to be visually pleasing to the thousands of men who see her every day and don`t give a damn (unless she happens to be bending over at time time to give them a good show...which she isn`t). She wakes up one hour before work, total, and washes her face, gets dressed, eats breakfast and leaves. She eats to maintain her well-being, and has a healthy attitude towards food and also towards herself as an intelligent human. She knows that she has a right to be thought of as wonderful no matter what she looks like on the outside, and she`s in conscious rebellion against the eye-candy culture of the US and other `modern` civilizations.

In a civilized culture such as Islam, the façade of unnatural beauty is seen as a lie, and natural beauty is seen as a private affair. Emphasis is placed, not on external beauty, but instead on internal beauty, of which all women have equal potential. (All men are created equal, why not, therefore, all women?) Where unnatural beauty is caked on, rubbed in, or drawn on, natural beauty is cultured by nobility of character, mercy, honesty, compassion, intelligence and other such Islamically recommended traits in Muslims of both genders.

Islam switches the gauge of woman`s worth from outer beauty to inner beauty and brains. How? Since sexuality is no longer a public affair, the yard stick has to be taped next to personality and intelligence instead. Anyone who doubts this has only to try and rate the anatomy of a bunch of Scarfies against each other on a scale of one to ten. It`s impossible. You can`t judge their physical attributes when you can`t even see them. A woman who wears a scarf allows herself to be judged only by who she is, what she says and does, how she interacts, and not on what was allotted to her physically.

On the other hand, women who let their beauty and anatomy hang in the breeze can be easily compared, scrutinized, dissected and categorized. A `beautiful` woman (with make-up, inadequate clothing, mental complexes involving her self-worth) is a good woman regardless of whether she is a malicious gossip or a tyrant in her own home. An `ugly` woman (with no makeup, modest clothing, realistic attitude about the impermanence and irrelevance of beauty) is a bad woman, no matter how kind, how intelligent, how compassionate she is.

In all this, a `beautiful` woman feels as though she somehow had a hand in her creation, is proud of her looks, acts as though her good features are the direct results of her hard work somehow, and not at all to a combination of genes completely outside of her sphere of influence. One wonders; what`s the point of turning yourself into a walking aphrodisiac to begin with? Why start the mower if you`re not going to cut the grass with every man on the street? It certainly doesn`t contribute to a woman`s dignity! If a woman wants her worth to be judged by internal merits, then she won`t over-shadow them with a display of flesh that historically, biologically, and inevitably arouses lust, and not respect.

Islam frees women from being every man`s eye-candy, and clearly states that her appearance and sexuality are not public domain. They are a privilege bestowed upon only those who were worthy, and worthiness is determined by whether or not one is fit to spend a life-time with you. (That means your soul mate-your husband) The only other people who can see it would be those who were unaffected by it, like your brothers, father, blood-uncles, grand-father, and other women, lesbians obviously not included.

Islam has shown itself to be absolutely the most uplifting religion for women, period. Given the right to vote, right to own, right to inherit, right to speak, right to be judged on internal factors, Islam rescues woman kind from being overshadowed by her sexuality and gives a woman back her humanity.


It will definitely clear things.

hossp:
=>Where did I say anything about degradation of women? Islam does not provide for Women’s right and that is the fact.

when you don`t recognize the rights of another person as a human, that`s as good as degrading the other person.


=> Primary Importance and Priorities are two different things.

Unfortunately you did not get the sense of my statement. Primary importance of a woman is given to her house and children, that was what I meant by the original statement.


=> Hazrat Khadija inherited some business from her late husband and employed a famous man to run that business. She never did it by herself. Anyway, what Islam has to do with her trade? It was there before Islam. After Islam I believe Prophet was running the business, if it was still in existence. There are a lot more questions about this story of the Prophet’s marriage to Hazrat Khadija then what you have read in your grade three books. I will be glad to bring that up in discussions if you so desire.

Hazrat Khadija was still the incharge. She employed people herself and if she did get people to go for her on trade, it was by her permission only. And she inherited it from her father, not husband.


=>Hazrat Aisha was 9 or 13 years old (depending on what you believe) when she married the Prophet. You need to show evidence that she had even read Quran what to talk about teaching others. If she was teaching the Quran to Sahaba, then she was defying the Islamic rules about “Mohrims”. I think you also need to point out the source of your claim.

Read the whole life history of Hazrat Ayesha (RA). Here is something reproduced from my O`Level Islamiat book:

``After the death of Prophet Muhammad, she spent 48 years of her life preaching and propagating the message of the Holy Quran``

A leading jurist, Imam Zuhri says, ``Hazrat Aisha was the most learned person among the people. Senior and learned Companions used to consult her.``

Abu Musa Ashari says, ``We never faced any difficulty, on which when we enquired from Aisha we did not get information relating to it.``

Umar bin Zubair (Companion) says, ``Aisha was the most scholarly person of her time in Quran, fundamentals of religion, fiqah, poetry, medicine, Arabian history, genealogy, and discrimination between lawful and unlawful things.``

Imam Zuhri further says, ``If the knowledge of all men, and the wives of the Prophet (SAW) were put together, the knowledge of Aisha would exceed it all.``

``She used to convery decisions on religious matters, even during the days of the first three Khalifas.``

Nabia Abbot, writer and teacher at the Univ. of Chicago: she stands shoulder to shoulder with the eminent jurists of that time.

And you say ``she had even read Quran?`` Astagfirullah!!!!!!!!!

She preached in full segregation. Exactly like the women who used to come and hear Prophet Muhammad (SAW) when he preached in the Mosque.


=>It was not Hazrat Safiya alone, who took part in wars. It was always a tradition to take women to war so they can cook food and do the laundry. I am sure with war all around Islam many women did that duty. That did not ensure any women`s rights.

Hazrat Safiya FOUGHT and even killed a soldier. Go and read Islamic history! I dont rem which battle it was, but I`ll look it up, and post it here, when I find it.


=>If you make a claim that he did house work you need to provide the reference to it. Offhanded comments and unsubstantiated arguments just bring the quality of a work down and that is what we have, an article that has no value and is full of unsubstantiated claims in other words lies.

Lies? Interesting! So the rights of women which are supported by Quran, lies....?

And as for references, check any book on Seerat-e-Tayyiba (The Sealed Nector etc.) and you`ll find them. I don`t have that book so I cant quote directly. But it`s there alright!


=> What my refuting of the Quran has to do with it? If the Quran condones beating then the Quran does not support women’s right and thus is not the source to claim that Islam provides for women’s rights.

From just one ayat (without reading the tafseer I am sure) you are generalizing that Islam does not provide for women`s rights! Don`t you think that`s more of a sweeping statement than all those put together in my article? (sic) And the Quran does NOT condone it; it only gives a conditional permission in ONE circumstance (ONE only - read the tafsir to find out which). And even in that, it is stated categorically: not on the face and not so any marks appear.


=>What the Quran has to say about the Women’s right of:

Choice - of having or not having children.

=> If having children endangers her life, she can choose not to have children. check out www.islam-qa.com - it has a more detailed fatwa on this.

Refusing to have sex with her husband against her will.

=> check out www.islam-qa.com - it has a more detailed fatwa on this.

How Hudood laws guarantee women’s rights?

I think i told you to get a copy of ``Reality of Objections on Hudood Ordinance`` (an urdu publication brought out by Women Aid Trust) if you are really interested in this, and not arguing just for the heck of it. That publication is too long for me to write it here and all of its parts are equally relevant.


With ref to your post #31: Are you saying the Quran is outdated? (Nauzubillah!)

......you can hire a maid for ten dollars an hour and a whore for another fifty!

......... this is a ridiculous argument ............the simple fact that islam allows polygamy and the marriage of a nine/twelve year old with a fifty year old man disqualifies it from being used as any kind of standard for women`s rights in today`s world ............ it might have been okay for unwashed bedouins sharing a tent with their six sheep and four wives, but it is downright insane to use it as a point of reference for the modern wolrd ................ and no, it is not the same as using the writings of aristotle and plato as tha basis of a democratic society - it is comparing apples to oranges ..............

............. talking about women`s rights granted by islam is kind of like talking about the rights of jews as defined by nazism or the rights of blacks and coloreds as defined under apartheid .......... it is based on the principle of inequality ............ and don`t give me this ``separate but equal`` crap !............. the jews who bought into it ended up in a furnace and the blacks and coloreds who saw nothing wrong with it ended up in soweto or swaziland !............ muslim women who buy into this nonsense deserve to be beaten like it says in 4:24 !

............ and oh, by the way, anyone who says, ``the primary importance of a woman is in taking good care of the house and its inhabitants`` deserves to be used as a door mat ............ i hope to al-lah my daughters have higher aspirations than becoming a ten dollar an hour maid and a prostitute who turns the same trick night after night for food and shelter!........... we invented washing machines, dish washers, built in vacum systems, maid services and take-out chinese so that women could do something more meaningful with their lives ............

#32 by malik99


``why intellect deprived people like you pick on Islam, and not on other ``old`` teachings?``
``Quran as irrelevant because its 1400 years old ! ``


I say funky twist!!!!

#31 by hossp - You wrote ``What we have here is that Hafsa is attempting to define those rights from the religious teachings and books that are 1400 years old.``

Listen man, when was the last time you denounced democracy because it is derived from the books written during greek civilization of 2500 years ago?

Teachings of Socratese and Aristotle are a required reading in the progressive and vibrant western societies of today. Teachings of Confuscious which are 3000 years old are an integral part of the up and coming chinese civilization of today. 2000 year old teachings of Buddha move the hearts of millions of east asians in technological advanced societies like Korea, Japan etc. Yet, your enslaved and intellectually feeble mind singles out Quran as irrelevant because its 1400 years old !

The real question is this: why intellect deprived people like you pick on Islam, and not on other ``old`` teachings? The easy answer is because it is fashionable and ``in`` thing to do; because your western masters condone this practice; because critical thinking is not your forte.

Hafsah - In my quest to respond to the western slaves, bigots, and self-hating muslims on this board, I forgot to commend you for doing a fine job in penning this article. It is enlightened women like you who are taking the lead in reforming our corrupt and stale societies, and in re-invigorating the spirit of learning and research in our homes and cities.

I may or may not agree with you on all of your points, but i appreciate the genuine effort you put into writing a constructive article that spawns a constructive line of thinking in readers.

#29 by malik99

“The best advice I can give you is to do a comparative societal analysis of the societies that existed at that time.”

Well! Malik99 it seems that you are missing the context altogether! The issue here is women’s right. Moreover, the context is Women’s right today.
What we have here is that Hafsa is attempting to define those rights from the religious teachings and books that are 1400 years old.

All I am pointing out that the women’s rights have nothing to do with any religion and as you said there is no comparison between the two societies at all.
The women’s rights and the society 1400 years ago were different and there is no point in even claiming that the rules that applied 1400 years ago would apply today too.

So drop the claim that Islam provides for women’s right today, as it does not!!!!

Diatribe or not, the truth often bites.

#27 Inquilaabi - you parrotted exactly my point. That is, it serves no purpose to degrade any religion, be it Christianity, Judaism, voodooism, or Islam. Infact, Koran specifically prohibits muslims from degrading other religions. If it serves any purpose, then perhaps the debate should be between those who believe in organized religion vs those who do not believe in any religion. I have found such debates to be more intelligent than those between, say, Christians and Muslims on which religion is truth.

#28 Hossp - I began to respond to your posting. But then I realized it would be a monumental undertaking. Your posting is indicative of the fact that you are missing the hostorical and social context of the arabia of 600 AD. The best advice I can give you is to do a comparative societal analysis of the societies that existed at that time. It would be worthwhile before you launch into another out of context diatribe.

#21 by hafsa_ahsan

“I agree that most religions degrade women, but definitely not Islam”

All I said was: “Islam and for that matter no religion provides for women’s right”
Where did I say anything about degradation of women? Islam does not provide for Women’s right and that is the fact.

“Primary importance...ask any mother of two small kids what her priorities are!”

Primary Importance and Priorities are two different things.

”Work during Holy Prophet`s time: Hazrat Khadija was involved in trade; Hazrat Ayesha preached the Quran to Sahaba, Hazrat Safiya took part in Jihad...if you haven`t read Islamic History, please don`t make assumptions otherwise.”

Hazrat Khadija inherited some business from her late husband and employed a famous man to run that business. She never did it by herself. Anyway, what Islam has to do with her trade? It was there before Islam. After Islam I believe Prophet was running the business, if it was still in existence. There are a lot more questions about this story of the Prophet’s marriage to Hazrat Khadija then what you have read in your grade three books. I will be glad to bring that up in discussions if you so desire.

Hazrat Aisha was 9 or 13 years old (depending on what you believe) when she married the Prophet. You need to show evidence that she had even read Quran what to talk about teaching others. If she was teaching the Quran to Sahaba, then she was defying the Islamic rules about “Mohrims”. I think you also need to point out the source of your claim.

It was not Hazrat Safiya alone, who took part in wars. It was always a tradition to take women to war so they can cook food and do the laundry. I am sure with war all around Islam many women did that duty. That did not ensure any women`s rights.

``Holy Prophet doing the housework: there are numerous examples from history. Again, if you haven`t studied in depth, don`t assume a thing you don`t know about doesn`t exist.``

If you make a claim that he did house work you need to provide the reference to it. Offhanded comments and unsubstantiated arguments just bring the quality of a work down and that is what we have, an article that has no value and is full of unsubstantiated claims in other words lies.

”Wife beating is NOT allowed in Islam! I never condone it. But one Quranic ayat clearly says that there is only ONE instance when it is allowed. Are you refuting the Quran?”

What my refuting of the Quran has to do with it? If the Quran condones beating then the Quran does not support women’s right and thus is not the source to claim that Islam provides for women’s rights.

What the Quran has to say about the Women’s right of:

Choice - of having or not having children.
Refusing to have sex with her husband against her will.

How Hudood laws guarantee women’s rights?

Inqalabi !
don’t worry about echobum. He suffers from apoplexy. He was taught in a special madarssah and he failed to graduate from there too. He works in some restaurant in Jackson Heights.

malik99
Granted you think the Christian religion is all myth and story, but if you expect your own to show some respect for your own deen, the least you could do is not ridicule others for theirs. You probably weren`t educated at a `western` Catholic school like some of us were, otherwise perhaps you`d know the regard that Mary Magdalene is held in. And that all Christians are `brides of Christ.`

(shudders)

Echoboom. . .
No one is elevating the Pakis to the blacks in the US. Ram Ram. Those Pakis who think that African-Americans and Africans are the lowest of the low? Have no fear, such elevation will not be happening. That revolution will definitely not be televised.

And why the hell should commie-atheists as you say be hounded for their anti-Muslim talk? You aren`t just hounding commie-atheists, you are hounding anyone who doesn`t fit into your worldview. Pakis are yearning for their masters to return? Oye they had to have let their masters go in the first place in order for them to yearn for their return. And you`re going to sit on your high perch, speaking of totaamynahs and tell me that you`ve let your master go? That sounds rather hypocritical coming from someone who is benefitting from the West even as I write this, just as I am.

And no discussion! Wah! You can certainly dish it out but you can`t take it can you? And there is a difference between commies and liberals, as they`ll be so quick to point out themselves. Never ever should the two words be joined together. As for bristling, I can bristle if I damn well please. Is there some kind of `thaikha` one has here at Chowk as to who can react and who can`t? There, I`ve reacted, and I`ve bristled. And no discussion!
Have a nice day.

#10 hamdim2 and #13 teshah #17 rafa_alam-

Your glee at attacking any / all tenants of a religion practiced by more than a billion people wordwide only shows the extent of your western slavery. It is fashionable these days to put the entire religion of Islam under the kind of scrutiny that no other religion has ever been put on an international level. Yet, Islam has continued to withstand these malicious attacks, whose purpose is not progress, but malicisouness on the behest of western owners.

Your slavish minds aside, this notion that one additional piece of cloth on head represses a woman is as bogus as that a mini skirt liberates a woman. Tell a barbie-wanna-be teenage girl in the west suffering from bulemia and anorexia how liberated she is. Tell this to teenage girls who enslaved by the desirable looks criteria make rounds of plastic surgeons to nip and tuck their nose, lips, ears, breasts. Tell those girls who are coping with depression by popping prozaic how lucky they are.

If you two slaves were to have had the permission from West to attack Judaism and Christianity, you would know that the level of bigotry and gender bias far exceeds that of Islam. Consider this:

- For those who spew their dislike of women`s rights in Islam, the Jewish book Kabbalah does not even accord HUMAN rights (to non-jews of course). If a jewish man kills a non-jew, the punishment is monetary fine. If a non-jewish man kills a jew, death is his punishment. While the rest of the human community thinks of animals and plants as a creation of God to serve humanity, the Kabbalah teaches that the non-jews are a creation of God to serve the Chosen People (jews).

- Mary Magdalene, the only woman who Jesus loved and was possibly married to and considered closest to him, is branded as prostitute. Why? Because, her presence and the possible marriage to Jesus, threatened the aura of divinity that the early christians wanted to create around Jesus. Contrast this with the respect accorded to wives of Prophet Muhammad. His wives are called ``mothers of muslims``.

Dear chowkies, as an elightened and intelligent people, we must know this by now that every single religion of this world can be torn apart by bringing it under scrutiny. But that is not to say that there are no problems within `muslim` societies. Indeed a major reformation of Islamic societies needs to take place. But who should undertake this? The west? or the muslims themselves? When the Western christianity underwent a major transformation in the medievel times (inquisition and all) did the christians undertake that task, or was it Muslims or Budhists?

There is indeed a need for intense debate among muslims to reform our societies. The last thing however we need is to cloud this debate with hate mongers and those on the leash from west.

Oye inquilaba:23
You are supposed to re-act this way. You are ful-filling the purpose. Commie-atheists type ARE the ones who will be hounded if they talk anti-Islam and anti-muslim talk. Once that stops only then the scum will be ``tolerated``.

Never ever should the anglo-enamoured Pakis elevate themselves to the blacks in U.S. Some gall! The ones who were chained could never be enslaved but the Paki scum is yearning ang hankering for the masters to return. Dammit they are willing to pay to become the totaa mynahs through the burger education system ( jee-mujhhay-Islamiyaat aur-urdu-mushkil-lagtee-hai types).

If you are that type you should really bristle. That IS the idea.

and no discussion! This is for your info. only. You can bristle again, though. if you are commie-atheist-liberal type caliming to be a MUSLIM. It does not apply to non-muslims, so no need to bristle.

Echoboom, you do an absolutely pitiful job of trying to save the world. When someone, was it Annie Lennox, sang `Don`t mess with a missionary man` I think she was probably singing about you.
By the way, how did you get to speak such perfect English?
Why is it that you are on this monotonous repetitive bent of telling western-educated pakis or whoever what scum they are? Our African brethren who were slaves talk about using our westernised educations to subvert the west. I guess that kind of talk interests you not in the least. Once a slave, always a slave? When was the last time you looked in the mirror ghulaam sahib?
Next time you want to go on your diatribe of slavishness to the West, please make sure you are standing in front of a mirror. And not with your ass facing it as it is right now. Maybe then some of us will listen to you.

Regards

harimau :
We all know the editorial policy of NYT - hence I never see any of its Op-eds as anything more than propaganda.

hamidm2 :
Women rights are barbaric ideologies? Interesting!

hossp:
I agree that most religions degrade women, but definitely not Islam. Unfortunately I cannot take your word for it otherwise! Have you done something in comparitive religion or Islamic studies?

Primary importance...ask any mother of two small kids what her priorities are!

Work during Holy Prophet`s time: Hazrat Khadija was involved in trade; Hazrat Ayesha preached the

Quran to Sahaba, Hazrat Safiya took part in Jihad...if you haven`t read Islamic History, please don`t make assumptions otherwise.

I never said a woman cannot share financial responsibility (which is a burden most women would rather avoid anyway)! If she wants to, she can. If she doesn`t want to, no one can force her. Men donthave a choice here. Whether they want to earn or not, they have to support the family. And they have to spend on their families. No such obligations on women: they earn and keep whatever they earn. That`s their own, and they dont have to spend it on anyone if they dont want it.

Holy Prophet doing the housework: there are numerous examples from history. Again, if you haven`t studied in depth, don`t assume a thing you don`t know about doesn`t exist.

Wife beating is NOT allowed in Islam! I never condone it. But one Quranic ayat clearly says that there is only ONE instance when it is allowed. Are you refuting the Quran?

What society are YOU talking about? I have first hand experience of slum areas as well as the maidservants who routinely come with marks on their faces etc. Just b/c it doesn`t happen in your area, doesn`t mean it doesn`t exist at all.


Rights of inheritance may not be equal, but at least they are there. And think about it: out of
the inheritance a man gets, he has to spend it on his family. A woman`s share is entirely her
own. And besides, in this country, equal or unequal, women do not even get what`s rightfully
theirs.

If a widow does not want to work, she doesn`t have to. But in our society she has no choice. No one supports her so she has to work. But it is her right of course, and if she is working, no one has any right to tell her otherwise.

I clearly refuted the servant/slave thing in the last paragraph when I talked about democracy. Read it again!

There are numerous ahadis supporting the Sahih Bukhari Hadis 9.100

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: An orphan virgin girl should be consulted about herself; if she says nothing that indicates her permission, but if she refuses, the authority of the guardian cannot be exercised against her will. Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 2088

A virgin came to the Prophet (peace be upon him) and mentioned that her father had married her against her will, so the Prophet (peace be upon him) allowed her to exercise her choice.Sunan of Abu-Dawood Hadith 2091 Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

Of course if you don`t believe in ahadis at all in the first place, that`s a different matter totally.


teshah:

Prophet Adam and Eve BOTH took the forbidden fruit and it wasn`t the fault of Eve. Anything
otherwise is a purely Christian theory of the Original Sin.

And please read the tafseer of an ayat before drawing generalizing conclusions about ``Islam and rights of women`` from just one ayat.

Minhaj :

And women are ``expected`` to ``tolerate`` all this feeling all this while, that yes it is their

fault and they should have done better.

The TV Trolley thing was a very sarcastic comment. I don`t know what you took it as.

inquilaabi :
Rememmber silence amounts to consent LOL

vertex:
Well, my basic intention was to speak up against the curbing of rights of women in our society (with some sarcastic references); looks like it started a totally different debate altogether.

``Right to Marry of their Own Choice:``

How about making it compulsory for women to go out, find, woo, and bring in their future husbands. My guess is this will make most of the sub-continentals run for cover. All they want is to get abbu or someone bring in nice boys with good (family) incomes as husbands, and they then can choose without pressure. This is unfair. Like western women, they must get out there and hustle to rope-in their mates and be willing to deal with the trials and tribulations along with the joys of having to put-out in vain. Now we are talking real choice, which, naturally, comes with responsibilties. Only then can true emancipation can take place, else its just entitlement.